Majority

[seebs]

I tend to agree. To fully understand the arguments put forward by evolutionists, you need an advanced science degree which entails a large amount of indoctrination on the topic. You only know what you are talking about if you've had that indoctrination, and agree with what is taught.

This claim is not merely wrong in the sense of being counterfactual; it is wrong in the sense of being clear and unambiguous false witness.

Science education goes to great lengths to avoid indoctrination, because people who have been indoctrinated make very poor scientists indeed. Science grows when people question long-held assumptions, challenge the existing models, and try to find ways to replace them with better ones.

Any scientist studying in any of the fields related to these issues will be taught to question the basic assumptions of the field and challenge them. Of course, most of those basic assumptions hold up pretty well; some of them have withstood two hundred years of very active testing. Others have to be revised over time.

But... It's fine by me if people want to say "this way of understanding the Bible seems to be the best one, so I will believe this no matter what anyone else thinks". What I don't like is people who present this decision as being based on a full and careful understanding of all of the information. If you don't have the information, don't claim you have it; that's lying. If you don't understand the material, don't claim you understand it; that's lying too.

The straight-up theological question is an interesting one itself, and I think it's a productive avenue for exploration. It's a lot more productive than making misleading, false, and/or insulting claims about the scientific method while making it abundantly clear that you are unwilling to debate anything but straw men.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

As noted, most of the real material in this field isn't particularly accessible to those of us (like you and me) who don't have graduate-level educations in the field.

But, hey. Go ahead and start a thread on scientific evidence in favor of YEC. I don't mean attacks on evolution or old earth; I mean specific evidence of a young earth, or that various creatures aren't related.

Accessible? Yes. Often used? No.

Sure, I can get some YEC evidence together, but it will have to be a bit later. I am working on accretion rates and heat flux in Lake Vostok as well as an asymptote/n equation for partitions.

 

[seebs]

Accessible? Yes. Often used? No.

Okay, I give up.

How can you understand population genetics, when, as a near math major, I can't even follow the statistical parts, let alone the biology? 'cuz, it seems to me, without a pretty solid statistical basis, it'd be pretty hard to call any serious work in popgen "accessible".

Likewise, my basic college chemistry doesn't come anywhere near qualifying me to understand anything but the most simplified sound bites about how carbon dating works, and I know even less about the other radiometric dating techniques.

So, how do you do it? How do you understand material across a dozen fields, most of which isn't even comprehensible without graduate-level education in the field?

Sure, I can get some YEC evidence together, but it will have to be a bit later. I am working on accretion rates and heat flux in Lake Vostok as well as an asymptote/n equation for partitions.

No problem. I can be patient. I've been waiting two and a half years, pretty much since the first day I posted here, for a single piece of scientific evidence that was actually positive support for a young earth, as opposed to attacks on a particular notion of an old earth.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

So, how do you do it? How do you understand material across a dozen fields, most of which isn't even comprehensible without graduate-level education in the field?

Simply, while it takes a great deal of education to understand all of a field, it doesn't take a Ph.D. to accumulate enough knowledge on certain topic to become semi-competent. With all of the materials available online, one can teach themselves anything they want, as all of the prequisite info is out there as well. It just takes time

 

[Micaiah]

I like the way you expressed this Seebs, and will use it myself if you don't mind:

This is not merely wrong in the sense of being counterfactual; it is wrong in the sense of being clear and unambiguous false witness.

Science education goes to great lengths to avoid indoctrination, because people who have been indoctrinated make very poor scientists indeed. Science grows when people question long-held assumptions, challenge the existing models, and try to find ways to replace them with better ones.

Any scientist studying in any of the fields related to these issues will be taught to question the basic assumptions of the field and challenge them. Of course, most of those basic assumptions hold up pretty well; some of them have withstood two hundred years of very active testing. Others have to be revised over time.

Yes, and that is why Creation is so openly welcome in the public school system, and so much time is spend examining and questionisng the philosophical and scientific assumptions inherent in evolution ---- not.

You and I both know that later school is largely about cramming information and passing exams. I've never seen any attempt made to accomodate the beliefs of those who accept the plain teaching of Scripture on Creation. I have seen school text books that openly mock those beliefs.

I was sitting in an education unit once where the lecturer was talking about how schools need to be more accomodating of cultural differences. They were trying to make us more aware of things that cause hardship and hence learning difficulties for those students. They had some of the foreign and indigenous cultures in mind. In the same lecture, the teacher got onto the topic of parent controlled schools and spoke of problem of those controlled by 'lunatic fringe Christian groups who teach things such as Creation'. The irony was a bit overwhelming.

 

[Micaiah]

Simply, while it takes a great deal of education to understand all of a field, it doesn't take a Ph.D. to accumulate enough knowledge on certain topic to become semi-competent. With all of the materials available online, one can teach themselves anything they want, as all of the prequisite info is out there as well. It just takes time

Yeah, and what else do you do when the blizzards are raging outside in the heart of Antarctica.

asymptote/n equation for partitions.

You like these ones? Ever tried the application of diagonalisation to systems of differential equations for a bit of a buzz.

 

[seebs]

Simply, while it takes a great deal of education to understand all of a field, it doesn't take a Ph.D. to accumulate enough knowledge on certain topic to become semi-competent. With all of the materials available online, one can teach themselves anything they want, as all of the prequisite info is out there as well. It just takes time

I agree... But I've been reading on this topic for probably 15 years now, and I wouldn't come close to saying I've seen "all" of the arguments; I wouldn't even say I've seen "most" of them.

 

[seebs]

Yes, and that is why Creation is so openly welcome in the public school system, and so much time is spend examining and questionisng the philosophical and scientific assumptions inherent in evolution ---- not.

Actually, it is. We've studied it, and we've found that, from the perspective of physical sciences, it isn't true, and can't be made to work... And that, to make it work, we would have to reject a model which is working well for everything from medicine to space travel, on the grounds that it disagrees with the way some people read a religious text.

That's not scientific.

You and I both know that later school is largely about cramming information and passing exams.

High school, yes.

Undergraduate, not so much.

Post-graduate, not at all.

I've never seen any attempt made to accomodate the beliefs of those who accept the plain teaching of Scripture on Creation. I have seen school text books that openly mock those beliefs.

Well, yeah. That's because the plain teaching of Scripture is not science of any sort. It's theology.

In the same lecture, the teacher got onto the topic of parent controlled schools and spoke of problem of those controlled by 'lunatic fringe Christian groups who teach things such as Creation'. The irony was a bit overwhelming.

Well, tell you what.

When you're willing to give equal time to every other religion's creation stories, then we can talk about whether or not the Christian creation story ought to be treated specially in schools.

For now, I propose we go with the blunt facts, which is that we found out over a hundred years ago that the creation story was not all factual history in the modern sense.

It's not a new concept. The only reason it's being argued is that there's a lot of money to be made trying to make people feel good about it.

It has been TWO AND A HALF YEARS since I came to this board, and so far, the total of all evidence ever provided specifically supporting YEC beliefs is this: "".

That's it.

I've seen pages and pages of misinformed attacks on evolution, using invalid arguments, begging the question, ad hominems and red herrings right and left. When these are diligently rebutted and carefully explained, the people posting them disappear from the thread, and come back a week later making the exact same claim, without even addressing it.

It is frustrating, depressing, and harmful to the faith. This is a problem we solved nearly two thousand years ago. There is no reason for us to be working so hard on it today.

I guess... Just go read Augustine, okay? Please? As a special favor to me? Read his work. Look at how, without the slightest hint of modern science to taint his thoughts, he came to conclusions that, it turns out, leave us with a story without the slightest hint of conflict with modern science.

The story is all there. The truth is all there. We do not need to make the same mistake that got Galileo locked up, we do not need to hold up signs saying "I reject fundamental tenets of science and I vote".

 

[1denomination]

Actually, it is. We've studied it, and we've found that, from the perspective of physical sciences, it isn't true, and can't be made to work... And that, to make it work, we would have to reject a model which is working well for everything from medicine to space travel, on the grounds that it disagrees with the way some people read a religious text..".

So you had to change your interpretation of the scripture so you wouldnt have to change your interpretation of evolution, because evolution fits the world better. Makes sense to me

Well, yeah. That's because the plain teaching of Scripture is not science of any sort. It's theology..".

AND Praise God for that

Well, tell you what..".

Do I detect a little hostal tension

When you're willing to give equal time to every other religion's creation stories, then we can talk about whether or not the Christian creation story ought to be treated specially in schools.".

Well the evolutionist teach their creation story if their going to take out mine lets take out their religion out too, since you brought it up http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-332.htm
http://www.creationists.org/evolutionisreligion.html just as those who dont want to hear about my religion I dont want to hear about theirs, nor do I want my children to. At least not as pure proven fact.

It's not a new concept. The only reason it's being argued is that there's a lot of money to be made trying to make people feel good about it.".

Why does my feeling good about my theology bother you. shouldnt I feel good about my theology Because truthfully mine is so much simpler than yours, not to mention yours seems to me to make more holes in the scripture than mine.

God Bless.
.

 

[seebs]

So you had to change your interpretation of the scripture so you wouldnt have to change your interpretation of evolution, because evolution fits the world better. Makes sense to me

Yes. And before you start talking about "conforming to the world", consider the context; that has to do with moral standards. Faith for morals, science for physics.

Note that my understanding of science changes over time, because science changes in light of new data.

But... FWIW, I have not particularly "changed" my interpretation of Scripture on this point. I have, for as long as I have believed the Bible to be of any interest whatsoever, believed Genesis to be a creation myth, teaching us matters of faith and morals, and without any particular relevance to the merely factual question of how the world works.

Well the evolutionist teach their creation story if their going to take out mine lets take out their religion out too, since you brought it up http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-332.htm
http://www.creationists.org/evolutionisreligion.html just as those who dont want to hear about my religion I dont want to hear about theirs, nor do I want my children to. At least not as pure proven fact.

All you're doing here is citing people who are bearing false witness. Evolution is not a religion. It is not even a belief system; it's a working theory.

Is it a "fact"? That life forms change over time is a fact. That a species can split into two species is a fact; we see it fairly often. Common descent could be called a "theory", but then, gravitation is a "theory". The fact is that objects fall, planets orbit stars, and stars orbit the center of the galaxy. Gravity is our theory which explains this fact.

Why does my feeling good about my theology bother you.

It doesn't.

What bothers me is when a theology which requires us to reject sound scientific methodology is pushed in a way that drives people away from considering Christian theology in more important areas.

shouldnt I feel good about my theology Because truthfully mine is so much simpler than yours, not to mention yours seems to me to make more holes in the scripture than mine.

Well, of course. Mine requires a very different understanding of scripture.

As it happens, that understanding of scripture is useful, in many other ways, so I think it's a very good understanding. It allows me to reconcile a loving God with the genocides of the Old Testament, it allows me to begin to understand the tension between faith and works... It is a good approach.

But when I want to know how fast an object falls, I will not look to the Bible, and when I want to know how to predict how fast an object will fall, I will not look to the Bible, because the Bible is not about those questions.

When I want to know how God feels about Creation, I will read Genesis. When I want to know why it is that my cat and I have such similar joint patterns, even though both of us could be better off with somewhat different joint patterns, I will read a biology textbook.

 

[Micaiah]

1Denomination, taken from your link:

The writer has documented in two recent Impact articles1, 2 from admissions by evolutionists that the idea of particles-to-people evolution does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory.

Nice to hear someone prepared to admit this.

 

[Micaiah]

Well, yeah. That's because the plain teaching of Scripture is not science of any sort. It's theology.

Never?

 

[PaladinValer]

Never.

Our God isn't some worldly god but a Living, Spiritual God. I refuse to worship some god who expects me to follow his written revelation blindly in terms of worldly affairs. That isn't my God, the Blessed Holy Trinity. My God is a Living, Spiritual, and True God.

And this is exactly how the Early Church believed as well, as inspired by the Holy Spirit. If the Early Church is wrong on this, then the Spirit lied, and we all worship a lie. If so, then we can dash Christianity right off the face of the Earth.

To my above, I say "No thank you;" I rather side on the wisdom of Spirit-inspired Fathers and Church than on modern interpretations of humanity that have no ancient basis.

 

[tryptophan]

The problem with teaching creationism in a high school science classes is that there is no evidence for the creationist accounts. In order to be considered science, you need some sort of evidence. It would be appropriate to discuss the creation accounts in a world religions class, but in science, it is not appropriate. However, there is ample evidence to support evolution. That is what should be taught in science classrooms.

 

[Micaiah]

The problem with teaching evolution in a high school science classes is that it ignore the fact that God exists, and has given clear statements in Scripture about our origins. In order to be considered science, you need some sort of evidence. It would be appropriate to discuss the way in which life supposedly came from inanimate objects, and the big bang theory in a world religions class, but in science, it is not appropriate due to lack of evidence. However, there is ample evidence to support what God says in Scripture about Creation. That is what should be taught in science classrooms.

 

[Micaiah]

Never.

You seem to be saying that not only was this never the case, tehre are good reasons why God wouldn't. And here they are:

Our God isn't some worldly god but a Living, Spiritual God. I refuse to worship some god who expects me to follow his written revelation blindly in terms of worldly affairs. That isn't my God, the Blessed Holy Trinity. My God is a Living, Spiritual, and True God.

The God I read about in the Bible is indeed living, and actively concerned about the worldly affairs of humanity. The record of His inspired words is all about how we should order our 'worldly affairs'. If you don't want to accept that, I'm not sure why you are posting on this forum.

And this is exactly how the Early Church believed as well, as inspired by the Holy Spirit. If the Early Church is wrong on this, then the Spirit lied, and we all worship a lie. If so, then we can dash Christianity right off the face of the Earth.

Provide your explanations and references please.

 

[gluadys]

The problem with teaching evolution in a high school science classes is that it ignore the fact that God exists, and has given clear statements in Scripture about our origins. In order to be considered science, you need some sort of evidence. It would be appropriate to discuss the way in which life supposedly came from inanimate objects, and the big bang theory in a world religions class, but in science, it is not appropriate due to lack of evidence. However, there is ample evidence to support what God says in Scripture about Creation. That is what should be taught in science classrooms.

Sheesh! Micaiah, what evidence do you have about God's existence which makes it a "fact", not a belief.

And if we let that slide and grant that God exists, what evidence do you have that the Bible, rather than the Qur'an, the Vedas or the Norse Sagas are his revelation? For that matter what evidence is there that God, supposing he exists, has revealed anything to anyone?

Why is it you cannot make basic distinctions between knowledge based on observation and knowledge based on conviction?

Note, please, I am not disputing the fact of God's existence, nor of the bible as an important part of his revelation to us.

But, unlike you, I am aware I know these facts by faith, not by observation.

What I observe I can show to others. But of what I know by faith, I can only testify, not offer concrete evidence.

And that is why creationism, if it belongs in school at all, belongs in the world religions class, not in the science class.

 

[Micaiah]

So you are saying that science is all about observation, and that we cannot discern that God exists from His creation. That contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture. Read Romans 1.

Further, science provides explanations about the natural world. Given that Creation unfolded as described in Genesis, I'd expect to see the evidence that supports this. That evidence exists and Creationists use this to explain our natural world, and demonstrate the explanations that are invalid.

That is science and faith. Same as evolution.

 

[gluadys]

So you are saying that science is all about observation, and that we cannot discern that God exists from His creation. That contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture. Read Romans 1.

The operative word is "discern". Of course, we can discern God from the observed fact of creation. But, that discernment is by faith, not by testing scientifically the hypothesis that God exists.

In fact, it is not even possible to propose a valid test by which one could falsify the existence of God. And without such a test, no discernment of God's existence qualifies as scientific observation.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

For all of those interested in evidence for YEC, read here please. It is only a small bit of evidence, but it provides some interesting tidbits. http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm